Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Potential legalization of tasers in MI - Amendment of CPL law

  1. #1
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270

    Potential legalization of tasers in MI - Amendment of CPL law

    Just found these... a couple bills floating through state legislature that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

    SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
    28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.
    Last edited by Evil Creamsicle; 10-30-2011 at 12:19 PM. Reason: Corrections -- In Red

  2. #2
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Creamsicle View Post
    Just found these... a couple bills floating through congress that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

    SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
    28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.
    I think you mean "state legislature" rather than "congress"...
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I think you mean "state legislature" rather than "congress"...
    I posted that at a time of day that I should not have been awake. Apologies, yes, I did mean state legislature.

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Creamsicle View Post
    I posted that at a time of day that I should not have been awake. Apologies, yes, I did mean state legislature.
    Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 10-30-2011 at 01:37 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
    I wonder if passing this with the wording you point out could have some impact on handgun OC legislation in the future... we should keep an eye on this bill to make sure they don't try and add that language.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Why would it? Whats on your mind here?

  7. #7
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
    Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Why would it? Whats on your mind here?
    Nothing may come of it. I am merely saying it merits paying attention to.

    Quote Originally Posted by budlight View Post
    Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.
    True... just speaking based on the 'slippery slope' philosophy. If the wrong language gets used and passed with tasers, it may embolden certain types to try and do something similar with the wording for firearms, under the guise of making the law 'uniform' or some such nonsense. As I said to stainless, nothing may come of it, just making observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.
    I agree. I have no reason to want a taser at this time for the same reason. I am only discussing the potential effects of the law.

  11. #11
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.
    Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  12. #12
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

    I don't think they are going to legalize the "shooting" type tasers... only the contact type... therefore, range could be a real issue... but yeah, I think it's a valid concern.
    When you put the gun in the holster, put the ego in the gun safe.

  13. #13
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.
    Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  14. #14
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?
    Not that I am aware of. My point is that if they are allowed in any manner, as would be the case under this legislation, then the argument that the Michigan taser law violates the right to keep and bear arms won't go very far... as there is no longer a blanket prohibition. In the case that was mentioned, Michigan's taser prohibition was found to be unconstitutional vis a vis DC v Heller.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wayne County, MI.
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.
    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since the piss poor company that makes the electrical unit, thinks I am smart only enough to have a 15' safe zone and the person threating my life was 16' I had to use other means of stopping the threat.

    Dead battery, thick clothing, etc.
    Last edited by Super Trucker; 11-06-2011 at 01:49 PM.

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by super trucker View Post
    ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since the piss poor company that makes the electrical unit, thinks i am smart only enough to have a 15' safe zone and the person threating my life was 16' i had to use other means of stopping the threat.

    Dead battery, thick clothing, etc.
    lol
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •